No offence at all at the second use of 'laugh out loud' at one of my posts. I know many pubs, as I can't believe that you don't, that have nicknames, I know a guy who called a local pub 'the kennel' because the owner kept 3 large dogs. As far as I know he was the only person that used that name. It's not in writing or in any records. So it can't be completely impossible that a man could call a pub called The Post Office Tavern, the Post House, especially when the two phrases were interchangeable in Victorian times. I'm not saying it's proven. I'm not saying case closed. I'm saying that it can't be impossible. If that deserves a lol then so be it.

The Tavern has never been known as the "Post House", Herlock, and you seem awfully eager to refute this with odd presumptions about nicknames without actually having one single piece of evidence to suggest that you're correct.

I, meanwhile, have dug deeper and actually tried to find evidence of such a pub by such a name and have found absolutely nothing. This includes me having bothered many a poor sod in central library and trying to find out if a nickname ever existed, none was found. No Gore's directories show a pub by that name, no person I've ever spoken to has been familiar with such a nickname, despite other nicknames for other pubs from the period still existing today.

So, again, this nickname was so obscure that it has left absolutely no trace of itself in this city that bore the pub.

Does that seem likely to you? Especially when we know that the pub was clearly referred to as "Poste House", coincidentally an historic pub that also resides in the city-center and yet wasn't then known by that name?

It's fascinating that people seem willing to discount the probable and invent reasons to accept the improbable.

When you have people basically pretending that such a nickname was likely used for a pub with a totally different name, it's a bit of a dead-end of nonsensical reasoning.

There are two serious anomalies with the diary: "Poste House", which even Shirley Harrison accepts is unresolved, and "one-off instance", which effectively sinks the diary.

The problem is there will always be people who will reject any challenge that doesn't provide absolute proof, and that, of course, is very much to the forger's advantage.

For all of the talk of the Tavern being known as the Poste House, I'm yet to see any actual evidence whatsoever that it was.

We know there's a pub called the Poste House, specifically called the Poste house, with that spelling. We know this is a famous and historic pub.

We know there is an unrelated pub known as the "Post Office Tavern", with no "e", yet there's absolutely no evidence that it was ever known as "the Poste House". Yet another obscure reference from the International Man of Coincidence: James "Ripper" Maybrick.

No offence at all at the second use of 'laugh out loud' at one of my posts. I know many pubs, as I can't believe that you don't, that have nicknames, I know a guy who called a local pub 'the kennel' because the owner kept 3 large dogs. As far as I know he was the only person that used that name. It's not in writing or in any records. So it can't be completely impossible that a man could call a pub called The Post Office Tavern, the Post House, especially when the two phrases were interchangeable in Victorian times.

Let's entertain this for a second:

Imagine if this pub, known to one man as "the Kennel", was featured in a controversial and suspicious diary, now imagine if it was spelled uniquely, like "the Kennell" for instance, with an added "L".

Now, imagine if a pub by the unique spelling of Kennell actually did exist within the same city as the one mentioned in the diary, but the name never came to be until several years later.

Would you not find it very odd that such a pub, known as the Kennell by one man, would also reside near a pub with that exact and unique name, but that the pub which actually bore that name was known by a different name at the time of writing?

That's what we're being asked to believe here, and it's frankly weird and quite a bit of a reach.

Odd that Maybrick knew a pub by this unique name, one that is lost to the sands of time, and yet, merely a stones-throw away, another pub would be known by that name several years later, with the same unique spelling as mentioned in the diary.

Possible? I guess.

Probable? Not very!

Add that improbable reality to the rest of the improbabilities re: the diary and we've got a very improbable story indeed.

Imagine if this pub, known to one man as "the Kennel", was featured in a controversial and suspicious diary, now imagine if it was spelled uniquely, like "the Kennell" for instance, with an added "L".

Now, imagine if a pub by the unique spelling of Kennell actually did exist within the same city as the one mentioned in the diary, but the name never came to be until several years later.

Would you not find it very odd that such a pub, known as the Kennell by one man, would also reside near a pub with that exact and unique name, but that the pub which actually bore that name was known by a different name at the time of writing?

That's what we're being asked to believe here, and it's frankly weird and quite a bit of a reach.

Odd that Maybrick knew a pub by this unique name, one that is lost to the sands of time, and yet, merely a stones-throw away, another pub would be known by that name several years later, with the same unique spelling as mentioned in the diary.

Possible? I guess.

Probable? Not very!

Add that improbable reality to the rest of the improbabilities re: the diary and we've got a very improbable story indeed.

And "give her a call". Not as much, but certainly another eyebrow raiser.

Give her a call
One-off instance
Top myself
Spreads mayhem

I make that four eyebrow-raising potential anachronisms occurring within the same, short document. Attempts have been made to explain one or two of these on an individual basis but, taken together, they - surely? - point to the diary's having been composed in the latter part of the twentieth century.

Look, I'm tired now and losing the will to live (my own fault for posting on a diary thread.) Everyone could be absolutely correct and the diary could be a modern forgery. The odds are in favour of it even. But.....we are all different. What utterly convinces one person might not convince the next. Our brains work differently. So finally I hope...yes it is possible/likely that the diary is a forgery....but can we be 100% certain? Some may be and that's fine. Some may be 90% certain and that's equally fine. I just have a slight doubt that it's a forgery. I don't think it makes me gullible or an idiot. Stubborn maybe. For me to say 'forgery' I want ABSOLUTE PROOF. Undeniable, inarguable, no-one-can-possibly-disagree-with proof. That's me I'm afraid. What we have are a collection of doubts and unanswered questions so far.

Anyway, good night

Come back Fisherman so I can get back to arguing about Cross/Lechmere!

To which I referred in a previous post, Post 918 to be precise, if you could have been bothered to read it. And who's being 'condescending'? I was merely asking you a question, that's all. Tut.

Graham

You are being condescending,The trouble is you don't realise it. Did I say it was a "famous" Archive?

This is what you wrote in post 935

"Really? So can you please explain why samples of Maybrick's handwriting from this famous archive haven't been reproduced in the various books about the Diary?"

The argument appeared to me to be revolving around the notion that there were no examples of James Maybrick's hand writing. This is not the case.

Now I don't know from which archive the SS Baltic letter was plucked, but there is another letter written by Maybrick in the Records of Richmond City chancery Court, Virginia State Library, and Archive., namely a letter to J.S.Potter dated 12th December 1887. Why this hasn't been published I haven't the foggiest.

I make that four eyebrow-raising potential anachronisms occurring within the same, short document. Attempts have been made to explain one or two of these on an individual basis but, taken together, they - surely? - point to the diary's having been composed in the latter part of the twentieth century.

Agree. And I have them rated on the Abby Normal eye brow raising scale ranked as follows:

1. One off instance. These go to eleven. Off the charts.
2. Top myself. Awkward!
3. Give her a call. High eyebrow raiser. Obviously an anachronism. LOL. OMG.
He should have said text!!!
4. Spreads mayhem. Low eyebrow factor. Heck even I do that.
Mayhem is the name of the butter substitute for people with low IQ right?

__________________"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline